Discussion Title: Are battery electric vehicles better than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?

1. Battery electric vehicles are better than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
1.1. Con: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are more convenient.
1.1.1. Con: Battery electric vehicles are much cheaper to service, and don't need to be serviced as regularly as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
1.1.1.1. Con: Battery electric vehicles are more [expensive](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-hydrogen-powered-cars-are-better-2016-1?IR=T) than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
1.1.1.1.1. Con: This is not supported by the facts. The Model3 is now $35k and still getting cheaper.
1.1.1.1.2. Con: Even if they are initially more expensive, they cost half as less to operate in their lifetime.
1.1.1.1.2.1. Pro: A [2018 study](https://www.energysage.com/electric-vehicles/costs-and-benefits-evs/evs-vs-fossil-fuel-vehicles/) found that electric vehicles cost less than half as much to operate as gas-powered cars.
1.1.1.1.3. Con: Battery electric relies on a more common resource and by cutting out dependency on fuel suppliers it does more to empower the consumer.
1.1.1.1.4. Con: The only hydrogen vehicle sold today \([Toyota Mirai for $57,500](http://driving.ca/toyota/mirai)\) is more expensive than the average EV \([Chevrolt Bolt for $37,500](http://www.chevrolet.com/byo-vc/client/en/US/chevrolet/bolt-ev/2017/bolt-ev/trim)\)
1.1.1.1.4.1. Con: The Mirai and the Bolt are in different classes with the Bolt being a subcompact hatchback and the Mirai a luxury sedan. Additionally Toyota have been unable to meet demand which has a knock on effect on price. The different cost in the cars cannot be used to evaluate cost of the technologies.
1.1.1.2. Pro: [Electric cars](https://www.thepersonal.com/blog/-/is-an-electric-car-right-for-you-) have fewer moving parts and don't need oil changes.
1.1.1.3. Con: The vehicle itself could be cheaper to service but this is a concealed cost as that is achieved by the battery being removed and replaced. The batteries themselves are not cheap to service.
1.1.1.3.1. Con: The lifespan of batteries is likely better that generally recognized.
1.1.1.3.1.1. Pro: Tesla has a [70% 8 year degradation warranty](https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/tesla-model-3-battery-degradation-warranty-minimum-70-retention), expected only under worst case use. Even an out of warranty Tesla with still over a few hundred miles of range is likely capable of satisfying most drivers needs.
1.1.1.3.1.1.1. Pro: [Data](https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110149_tesla-model-s-battery-life-what-the-data-show-so-far) projects 15% loss at 150,000 miles, so 210 of original 300 miles after 300,000 miles. And still 100 miles at 600,000 miles beating the range of a new 2012-2016 Nissan Leaf. Bigger batteries make for even longer future BEV lifespans.
1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1. Con: Bigger batteries do not produce linear improvement, [HFC does](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223250528_Releases_of_refrigerant_gases_CFC-12_HCFC-22_and_HFC-134a_to_the_atmosphere). This is because increasing the weight of the car by does not double the range. This means that bigger batteries are not a pure advantage.
1.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: If one doubles the Toyota Mirai's carbon fibre fuel tanks of 92.5kg \(wet\) or the size of the Tesla Model S's battery \(540kg\), they would not get double the range.
1.1.1.3.1.2. Con: Hydrogen tanks technically degrade eventually, but in no meaningful way relative to batteries. So the "Pro" of batteries potentially degrading less than expected, doesn't offset that they do or that range decreases over the vehicle's lifespan whilst HFCV do not.
1.1.1.3.1.2.1. Con: Maria tank lasts only 15 years. So there is a know lifespan at which it has zero range. I would say that is worth consideration versus gradual and longer term usefulness of a battery. [insideevs.com](https://insideevs.com/2016-toyota-mirai-refuel-2029/)
1.1.2. Con: Electric vehicles are more convenient because you can refuel at home and even make your own fuel with solar panels.
1.1.3. Pro: Charging stations for electric cars are [not as many and as accessible](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/business/electric-cars-cities-chargers.html) as standard gas stations.
1.1.4. Pro: Fuel cells [do not need batteries](http://www.fchea.org/fuelcells) and avoid the chemicals in them.
1.1.4.1. Con: A fuel cell is, itself, a kind of battery. [It has](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell) a cathode, an anode, an electrolyte and so on. It just also has a proton exchange membrane so the charge can be replenished by hydrogen.
1.1.5. Pro: Hydrogen vehicles have longer range.
1.1.5.1. Con: At the moment, increasing range of a hydrogen vehicle means increasing size of the tank. Increasing range of a battery means increasing the energy density.
1.1.5.1.1. Con: It is vastly easier to make a tank bigger than it is to make a battery technology more energy dense.
1.1.5.2. Pro: A full hydrogen tank lasts around [300 miles \(approx. 480 kilometers\)](https://www.bmw.com/en/innovation/how-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-work.html). Battery-powered cars are only able to match this mileage with very large batteries and frequent charging times.
1.1.5.3. Con: The newest Tesla Roadster has a [620 mile range](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_\(2020\)), greater than any hydrogen fuel cell vehicle currently being offered or on the horizon.
1.1.5.4. Pro: Hydrogen storage vessels \(compressed gas tanks\) have relatively short life spans due to the hydrogen high rate of permeation which compromises the integrity of such vessels over time.
1.1.5.4.1. Con: This is of low practical significance as degradation arguments overwhelmingly favor HFCVs.
1.1.5.4.1.1. Pro: The Toyota Mirai carbon-fibre tanks have no replacement schedule within the initial 12 years due to [degradation](https://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/04/20160419-toyota.html). In contrast the Tesla Model S, requires battery replacement after [eight years](https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty), during which it would lose as much as 25% of its capacity.
1.1.5.5. Pro: For large vehicles, like lorries, the capacity of fuel cells can be increased by increasing the size of the fuel tank.
1.1.5.5.1. Con: Electricity is still required to split the hydrogen for the larger tank.
1.1.5.5.1.1. Con: This is a neutral factor. Electricity would still be required to charge the extra batteries. The advantage of being able to use larger tanks as needed is not that it saves electricity but that it allows scalability and to exploit the energy density advantage of hydrogen, giving HFC vehicles effectively no cap on range, whereas lower energy density of batteries is more of a problem.
1.1.5.5.2. Con: Increasing battery capacity requires more batteries, which means much more weight.
1.1.5.5.3. Con: -> See 1.1.5.4.
1.1.5.6. Con: This assumes that, when it comes to operating a personal vehicle, range is an actual issue \(not just a perceived one\). In fact, the [average American](https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/25/the-average-american-drives-this-much-each-year-ho.aspx) drives fewer than 40 miles per day, which can be easily supported by existing EV technology.
1.1.6. Con: There are only a few Hydrogen refuelling stations, but there are commercial EV charging points everywhere.
1.1.6.1. Con: If hydrogen vehicles were more prominent, then more hydrogen refueling stations would be established. Similarly there were no EV charging points before electric vehicles became more common; the presence of both refueling stations and vehicles they were built for naturally grow together.
1.1.6.2. Con: It is relatively easy to convert existing infrastructure to supply hydrogen. It requires a dedicated tank and special fuel pump. Convertible fuelling infrastructure is widespread.
1.1.6.2.1. Con: Hydrogen might be a good replacement for natural gas for residential heating, so to eliminate the use of finite hydrocarbon natural gas consumption. But this is not the case for vehicles, it is far more efficient to use electricity to charge a battery than to waste most of the hydrogen potential energy via conversion processes into electricity. When you burn hydrogen you are wasting very little of its potential energy as your goal is to convert the energy into heat.
1.1.6.3. Con: It is not possible to convert existing fuelling infrastructure to support batteries due to lengthy recharge times and \(typically\) large additional power needs.
1.1.6.3.1. Con: Every existing gas fuel station already has sufficient power to deploy at least one quick-charge station, with the addition of stationary batteries any location with any electricity supply can also offer quick-charge capabilities.
1.1.6.3.2. Con: There is no need to convert existing fuelling infrastructure, literally every structure with electricity can easily provide low power destination charging capabilities and all homes are capable of providing Level 2 charging.
1.1.6.4. Pro: If you can park your car on your own personal property \(e.g. a driveway or garage\) you can charge your car overnight.
1.1.6.4.1. Pro: When charging an electric car in a personal garage, the costs of travel are carried by the driver's household. This energy to refill the car battery can again be connected to solar cells or windmills - making the power use sustainable and off-grid.
1.1.6.4.1.1. Con: The ability to use renewable energy sources is as applicable to HFCV as to EV.
1.1.6.4.2. Con: This is not a minimal advantage against HFCV, where a far greater capacity and much shorter fuelling time simply means you don't need to do this.
1.1.6.4.2.1. Con: It is advantageous to connect a battery vehicle to the grid at all times when it is not being driven, even if it is not being charged, nor charged quickly. A Battery EV can provide the grid with a managed load or even a source of power to help increase grid stability. The inability of a HFCV to do this makes it an inherently less valuable technology to their owners and also to society as a whole.
1.1.6.4.2.1.1. Con: The argument above says that increasing load on the national grid is a good thing and that HFCV are less valuable because they can't do this. Were this an advantage then we would see power companies attaching giant light bulbs to use up electricity for "stability".
1.1.6.4.2.2. Con: HFCV do not inherently have greater capacity, that is a false statement.
1.1.6.4.2.2.1. Con: Having far greater energy density means, by definition, that a hydrogen tank can store more energy than a battery of any given size. A hydrogen tank scales almost linearly in returned usable energy. E.g. If you doubled the capacity of the Toyota Mirai's carbon fibre tanks, you'd increase its weight by around 90kg. If you double the size the Tesla Model S's batteries, you'd add around 540kg. H2 tanks inherently have greater capacity by virtue of greater scalability.
1.1.7. Pro: You can fill up the tank of a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in minutes.
1.1.7.1. Con: [Very quick recharging](https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2017/Q2/instantly-rechargeable-battery-could-change-the-future-of-electric-and-hybrid-automobiles.html) is likely to become available for future EV batteries.
1.1.7.2. Pro: Battery electric vehicles can take [upwards](https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2469058.html) of 8 hours to recharge.
1.1.7.3. Con: You still have to go to a special hydrogen station and wait for the car untill it is filled up, for example you will be waiting 50 times 3 minutes per year. While for EV's most charging will be done when you are at home or work or when travelling you have to stop for lunch anyway. So in the end the average user with a 200 mile EV only needs to wait 5 times 20 minutes per year.
1.1.7.3.1. Con: Example figures are arbitrary. Current petrol technologies show occasional fuelling for a few minutes are acceptable to drivers. Needing to charge your car overnight remains a constraint on battery vehicles that HFC vehicles do not suffer and which does matter for many use cases.
1.1.7.3.1.1. Con: What is considered "acceptable" to drivers is bound to change over time, existing norms are not a prediction of future norms. It is likely that many will prefer spending 5 seconds per day at home plugging in versus going out of your way to travel to a special refueling station once per week or month to be a trade-off in favor of a BEV which only need to use non home/work charging during long distance quick-charging stops just like traditional gas and hydrogen.
1.1.7.3.1.1.1. Con: This assumes drivers will reframe their behavior around personal vehicles and abandon the well-established pattern of refueling at dedicated stations in favor of simply plugging in overnight.
1.1.7.3.1.1.1.1. Con: This assumes behavior is constant when it is [not](https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/09/06/how-and-why-does-consumer-behavior-change/#47fdd74f86dd). Change is the only constant.
1.1.7.4. Con: 350 kW charge rates are [already a reality](https://electrek.co/2017/12/21/first-ultra-fast-electric-car-charging-station-europe/). The larger the batter the faster \(distance over time\) it can be charged. It is not unreasonable to expect to see 600+ mile range and thus 300+ mile in under 10 minutes of recharge rate in the very near future.
1.1.7.5. Con: This assumes that, when it comes to operating a personal vehicle, recharge/refueling time is an actual issue \(not just a perceived one\).
1.1.7.6. Pro: Refilling a fuel cell vehicle is somewhat similar to refueling an ICE vehicle. This could be a major advantage, since specific personal transportation consumer behaviors \(such as stopping at a gas station to fill up a car in a few minutes\) have developed over decades and, as such, might be difficult to change.
1.2. Pro: Electric vehicles are safer than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
1.2.1. Pro: Hydrogen is dangerous and requires special training for storage and handling - even in garages where fuel cell cars will be serviced.
1.2.2. Pro: Hydrogen fires are [almost invisible](https://h2tools.org/bestpractices/hydrogen-flames) and very dangerous.
1.3. Pro: Electric vehicles are more efficient.
1.3.1. Pro: The efficiency of conversion from renewable energy source to movement of vehicle is much higher for a battery electric vehicle. Hydrogen is an unnecessary step in the energy conversion chain.
1.3.1.1. Pro: Hydrogen doesn't occur naturally, so it has to be [extracted and then compressed](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/electric-cars/93180/hydrogen-fuel-cell-do-hydrogen-cars-have-a-future) into fuel tanks.
1.3.2. Pro: According to the [US Department of Energy’s Office of Energy](https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/10/electric-car-myth-buster-efficiency/) Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.
1.3.3. Pro: Hydrogen is predominantly made by [gas reforming](https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming) using fossil fuels as the source. This uses huge amounts of electricity that could more efficiently be used to charge vehicles.
1.3.4. Pro: Liquified Hydrogen is difficult to efficiently kept at the [required low temperatures](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/hydrogen-liquefaction). [Metal-Hydride storage methods](https://www.fuelcellstore.com/hydrogen-equipment/hydrogen-storage/metal-hydrides) increase the mass of the gas storage well above an electrochemical battery.
1.3.5. Pro: The efficiency of a BEV is usually above 90% nowadays. A Tesla powerwall has a rated efficiency of [92.5% round trip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall). Using electricity to create hydrogen, then compress it back to electricity in a fuel cell results in energy efficiency of \< 30%. Comparing as methods of storing electricity batteries manage \> 90%, hydrogen manages \< 30% \([2006 IEEE study](https://thedriven.io/2018/11/14/the-ice-age-is-over-why-battery-cars-will-beat-hybrids-and-fuel-cells/)\).
1.3.5.1. Pro: A 150kW Fuel Cell needs a 20kW air pump to deliver air to the fuel cell. Hydrogen fuel must also be compressed to store it and deliver it. Even if all other processes were 100% efficient, this minimum requirement means the max. theoretical efficiency is 70%. In reality, it is currently \< 40% efficient.
1.3.6. Pro: Batteries allow kenetic energy recovery during decleration, pure FCEV do not have this ability as it would require seperate hydrogen and oxygen collection and an 800bar pump. As a result FCEVs use batteries for this purpose.
1.4. Con: Electric mobility has limited capacity and a short lifespan.
1.4.1. Pro: An electric car can [only travel 100 miles](https://phev.ucdavis.edu/about/faq-phev/) before needing to be recharged.
1.4.1.1. Con: The average person only travels [15 miles](https://semiengineering.com/electric-cars-gain-traction-but-challenges-remain/) in their day. For the vast majority of urban citizens, an electric car would meet their needs without issues around charging.
1.4.1.2. Con: While many older electric vehicles \(especially emissions compliance cars\) had sub 100-mile range, all of [Tesla's vehicles have 200+ miles of range](https://www.pocket-lint.com/cars/news/tesla/137055-tesla-everything-you-need-to-know). Additionally, [many recent non-Tesla electric vehicles have between 100 and 300 miles of range](https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/every-electric-car-ev-range-audi-chevy-tesla/).
1.4.2. Pro: The [charging infrastructure](https://semiengineering.com/electric-cars-gain-traction-but-challenges-remain/) that would be needed to facilitate longer journeys with charging stops en route is simply not developed sufficiently.
1.4.2.1. Con: As electric cars gain popularity, gas stations will have to adapt in order to retain customers. Charging infrastructure can develop rapidly to meet demand.
1.4.2.2. Con: Electric [vehicle charging infrastructure is currently much more developed](https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/#/analyze?fuel=ELEC&ev_levels=all&access=public&access=private&show_map=true) than [hydrogen infrastructure](https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=HY), so this claim could be used against hydrogen vehicles.
1.4.2.3. Pro: Charging infrastructure is not sufficiently developed because it is expensive.
1.4.2.3.1. Con: Public electric charge points cost [\< £2K](https://www.spiritenergy.co.uk/kb-ev-charging-point-business-case). Hydrogen fuel station cost [\> £ 2M each](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56412.pdf).
1.4.2.4. Con: -> See 1.1.6.
1.4.3. Con: User data from Teslas shows negligible degradation due to thermal management. Every modern EV uses thermal management to prolong battery lifespan.
1.4.4. Con: Some BEVs have a range over 400 miles \([Tesla S LR](https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/blog/model-s-long-range-plus-building-first-400-mile-electric-vehicle)\). A higher range could be made for certain applications, but it is not considered necessary for most people who drive \< 50 miles a day. A 30 minute fast charging is available for those who need to extend their range \([Superchargers](https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/supercharger)\).
1.5. Con: Electric vehicles are not environmentally friendly.
1.5.1. Pro: Synthetic fuels are [carbon neutral](https://www.bosch.com/stories/synthetic-fuels/).
1.5.2. Pro: The [generation of electricity](https://www.carthrottle.com/post/kggveep/) for the charging of electric vehicles still relies on the burning of fossil fuels, creating emissions into the environment.
1.5.2.1. Con: This assumes the grid is 100% fossil fuels, which is not the case. It also ignores the existence of rooftop solar panels.
1.5.3. Con: Excluding emissions from manufacturing \(some of which would apply to hydrogen vehicles\), electric vehicles have the potential to operate with zero emissions by sourcing from renewable energy.
1.5.3.1. Pro: Electric vehicles [do not burn fuel](https://youmatter.world/en/are-electric-cars-eco-friendly-and-zero-emission-vehicles-26440/), and therefore does not contribute to air pollution through CO2 emissions.
1.5.4. Con: V2G \(Vehicle to Grid\) is possible on BEVs. This means buying/selling electricity to make money, stabilising the grid against intermittent renewables.
1.6. Pro: The investment of [car makers](https://transportevolved.com/2017/04/04/are-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-doomed-and-have-electric-cars-won/), who have shifted their research to battery electric vehicles, indicates that battery electric vehicles are the best.
1.6.1. Con: Automakers are very [constrained by regulations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy). Without [CAFE requirements](https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2011/12/12/the-cafe-catch-22/), they wouldn't be so invested in electrics of any kind. Nor would they be relying on turbochargers and auto-stall schemes to gain an extra MPG with expensive and annoying systems.
1.6.2. Con: Some of the major car companies have been fully committed to research on fuel cell technology. Most notably, Toyota are still more committed to fuel cell compared to battery tech.
1.6.3. Con: Most car companies are just trying to make money, so if it is more expensive to mass produce fuel cells they will take the cheaper route of the electric car meaning that they will do more research on making them better.
1.7. Con: Lithium is a limited resource, whereas [hydrogen](https://enviroliteracy.org/special-features/its-element-ary/hydrogen-2/) is the most abundant element in the universe.
1.7.1. Pro: There are [concerns](https://www.ft.com/content/90d65356-4a9d-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b) that the supply of lithium will not be able to keep up with the demand for electric vehicles.
1.7.2. Con: Lithium is not a finite consumable, as it can be recycled, and there's a great deal of lithium yet to be extracted in the ocean \(lithium is a common byproduct of desalination\).
1.7.3. Con: Although abundant, a large amount of energy needs to be expended to create a useful amount for powering a car.
1.7.4. Con: There are other materials than lithium that can be used to store energy. When the economics drive us away from lithium, we can choose other metals or graphite for the battery.
1.7.5. Con: On Earth, most hydrogen is naturally bound to one or more other elements. Storing them in usable form is not exactly easy.
1.7.5.1. Pro: Hydrogen is [abundant in space](https://www.livescience.com/58498-why-is-hydrogen-the-most-common-element.html) but on Earth, [must be refined from natural gas](https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming), and the proper comparison is between batteries and fuel cells, which still require [rare metals](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251581438_The_use_of_rare_earth-based_materials_in_low-temperature_fuel_cells).
1.7.5.2. Pro: It takes [a lot of energy](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-water/) to separate hydrogen from oxygen \(H2O\).
1.7.6. Con: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles require a [rechargeable battery](https://www.alphr.com/technology/1006538/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars/) in order to function, so any requirement for heavy metals in a [BEV is a requirement in a HFCV](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2012.0325).
1.7.7. Con: Lithium is the third most abundant element in the universe, elementally. But the universal quantity of these atoms had almost no bearing on their practical applications for humanity here on earth. As such elemental abundance is a meaningless argument given the context of battery or hydrogen vehicles.